PDA

View Full Version : Anyone else fancy a Spit mkXIV



JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 07:51 AM
Playing a bit on War Clouds recently and realised that FW190 A-8 and D-9 entered servive in late '43 and autumn '44 respectively. In contrast the Spit MkIX dates from 1942 (although misleadingly dated 1944 in-game).

The Griffin engined Spit XIV with 2035HP was in service by Dec 1943 and was truly the contemporary of the most advanced FWs.

I'd like a go of one that's for sure- even up the scales a bit!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Triggaaar
10-18-2005, 08:00 AM
I think I speak for most Brits when I say yes, I'd fancy a go in one of those

JG53Frankyboy
10-18-2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
Playing a bit on War Clouds recently and realised that FW190 A-8 and D-9 entered servive in late '43 and autumn '44 respectively. In contrast the Spit MkIX dates from 1942 (although misleadingly dated 1944 in-game).

The Griffin engined Spit XIV with 2035HP was in service by Dec 1943 and was truly the contemporary of the most advanced FWs.

I'd like a go of one that's for sure- even up the scales a bit!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

the in game Spit Mk.IXs , except the HF , are all of the LF kind with Merlin 66 - that came in service 1943.
we have unfortunatly no F.Mk.IXc of 1942 with merlin 61 in game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

and yes, it would be very nice to have the Mk.XIV in game. actually some 3d party modeller works on one, but it seems they couldnt finnish it in time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.netwings.org/dcforum/DCForumID43/1360.html#1

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 08:18 AM
Looks pretty mean with 5 bladed Rotol and bulges over the cylinder heads. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Waldo.Pepper
10-18-2005, 08:26 AM
Looking forward to it. However, I think any Spitfire with clipped wings in an abonination and I refuse to fly them. (Unless I have been given no choice).

ImpStarDuece
10-18-2005, 08:30 AM
The XIV flew in bth clipped and unclipped variants. You should be all smiles about it Waldo.

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 08:35 AM
Are we definately getting one?

RAAF_Furball
10-18-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
....... I think any Spitfire with clipped wings in an abonination and I refuse to fly them. (Unless I have been given no choice).
Same here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif.

mynameisroland
10-18-2005, 08:49 AM
Dont want to burst anyones bubble but there is no way in hell the Spitfire XIV was a late 43 plane. It did appear in Spring 44 in limited numbers but there werent enough to equip even a single wing. The situation did not improve much and infact there were more Hurricanes in service in 1945 than there were Spit XIV's. If you look at production figures more Me 262's were produced and saw action than Supermarine Spitfire XIV's. If we put it in to context the real contemporary of a Spit XIV would be the Me 262 anyway or if limiting to piston engined fighters the D9/ Ta 152/ K4.

Dont knock the IXe we have in game it is a 43 fighter not a 42 one (see the boost levels) and the Spitfire VIII is also a 43 aircraft. Both of these fighters contemporary opponents are the Fw 190 A4/5/6 and the Bf 109 G6 onwards. The Fw 190 A8 is actually slower than the A5/6 at fighting altitudes so view the guys flying A8 instead of A6 as a bonus. The Spit IX is a good opponent for an Fw A8 both aircraft are at opposite ends of the 'fighter' spectrum. All I would say having flown both extensively is that one on one the Spitfire beats the Fw 190 hands down, only when you become involved in a group fight does the Fw become dangerous or when you become caught unawares. What I like to do online is take a formation of 3/4 Spitfires and sit at 5000/6000m and catch the enemy as they climb up to meet us. Above 5500m the Spitfire is brilliant, better than Fw A8 and any 109.

If you fly the Spitfire well the only fighters that will give you too much trouble are the Fw 190 D9 and the Bf 109 K4. What I would like to see is a Spitfire IX with 25lb's of boost however there is some debate as to whether enough saw combat. I do know that most squadrons that used Spit IX's at 25lb were there to intercept V1's and not fight Luftwaffe aircraft.

MEGILE
10-18-2005, 08:51 AM
No chance of a Spitfire XIV, until Oleg releases the code to trusted 3rd party devs... and then you will have to ask them nicely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
10-18-2005, 09:08 AM
25lbs boost was for IX's late in the war. It was used, be surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Not many IX's chased V1's. Some would patrol in the channel but the Tempest is the V1 killer, make no mistake. Individual Tempest pilots shot down more V1's single handed than some whole plane types like the IXhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.


Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:

The Griffin engined Spit XIV with 2035HP was in service by Dec 1943 and was truly the contemporary of the most advanced FWs.

I'd like a go of one that's for sure- even up the scales a bit!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The RAF's answer to the late 190's like the Dora was not a Spitfire. It was the Tempest V.

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 09:10 AM
The mkXIV equiped 601 Sq. in Dec 1943, and six squadrons by the end of 1944. Granted these are not huge numbers but I'd still like a go.

I love the MkIX too and have flown it to many a defeat and a few victories. Is the IXHF any differrent other than a pressurised cockpit?

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 09:21 AM
Oh, and ta152 is rather an in-game luxury as only a handfull saw service.

A creme de la creme Spit would be great too. I wouldn't object to a tempestV either.

I should be studying for an exam a week today, but discussing the minutiae of WWII planes breaks the boredom. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

mynameisroland
10-18-2005, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
The mkXIV equiped 601 Sq. in Dec 1943, and six squadrons by the end of 1944. Granted these are not huge numbers but I'd still like a go.

I love the MkIX too and have flown it to many a defeat and a few victories. Is the IXHF any differrent other than a pressurised cockpit?

The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see? There are records of GM1 equipped Focke Wulf 190's used for high altitude combat that certainly saw service but they didnt in great numbers and we dont have them here. Or Fw A5/6's running at 1.68 ATA boost that certainly saw service in large numbers spring 44 (thats over 2100 hp at full throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) but we dont see them in this sim at all. Figures would indicate that an A6 with light armament load out would be superior to the D9 below 25000ft at such boost settings. Now that is a scary thought.

The source regarding the Spit IX at 25lbs was posted here recently and it clearly indicated that few squadrons actually used this boost rating and those that did were based the English side of the Channel hence the only Germans they encountered were of the robotic buzz bomb variety.

Tempest vs D9 is where the real match up lies both true high speed fighters suited to slashing attacks. The Spitfire XIV at 450mph would handle like a brick compared to the Tempest or D9 at these speeds.

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 10:32 AM
The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see?


MkXIV squadrons as of Jan 1945:
Home- 157,169
Nehterlands- 2,402
Belgium- 41,130,350,601
Italy- 255

Overall 975 built, equipped 25 squadrons.

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 10:34 AM
infact there were more Hurricanes in service in 1945 than there were Spit XIV's.

Jan 45:
Only 7 squadrons were equipped with hurricanes, all of which were in South East Asia.

stansdds
10-18-2005, 10:50 AM
And how many squadrons were operating the Me-109Z? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

JHannibalSmith
10-18-2005, 10:57 AM
I know, it's very pedantic, but better than studying. "The British Fighter" by Frances Mason (8 from oxfam), makes for perverted attention to detail. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

HellToupee
10-18-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
The mkXIV equiped 601 Sq. in Dec 1943, and six squadrons by the end of 1944. Granted these are not huge numbers but I'd still like a go.

I love the MkIX too and have flown it to many a defeat and a few victories. Is the IXHF any differrent other than a pressurised cockpit?

The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see? There are records of GM1 equipped Focke Wulf 190's used for high altitude combat that certainly saw service but they didnt in great numbers and we dont have them here. Or Fw A5/6's running at 1.68 ATA boost that certainly saw service in large numbers spring 44 (thats over 2100 hp at full throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) but we dont see them in this sim at all. Figures would indicate that an A6 with light armament load out would be superior to the D9 below 25000ft at such boost settings. Now that is a scary thought.

The source regarding the Spit IX at 25lbs was posted here recently and it clearly indicated that few squadrons actually used this boost rating and those that did were based the English side of the Channel hence the only Germans they encountered were of the robotic buzz bomb variety.

Tempest vs D9 is where the real match up lies both true high speed fighters suited to slashing attacks. The Spitfire XIV at 450mph would handle like a brick compared to the Tempest or D9 at these speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ur ta152 has gm1, the spitxiv was used, and used from quite early on just because there wasnt 10,000 of them dosnt make it any less worthy of being in the sim. How many ta152s go229s 109zs were there, hell probly more XIVs than g6/as, the d9 was hardly a numerous opponent.

Kuna15
10-18-2005, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
Looks pretty mean

http://free-vk.t-com.hr/domagoj/smileys/ditto.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-18-2005, 04:09 PM
How many different versions of the Spitfire are already in this game €" which lacks flyable versions of:

The Mosquito -- the MOSQUITO, for crying out loud.
The Tempest or the Typhoon
The Swordfish, or any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft that wasn't Lend-Lease.

No Wellingtons, flyable or otherwise. No flyable Blenheim. No Beaufort. In the minor but interesting category, no Westland Whirlwind. In the hoplessly bizzare category, no Boulton-Paul Defiant.

And that's just British planes off the top of my head.

Have mercy, people.

Grey_Mouser67
10-18-2005, 04:16 PM
I don't think numbers used in service mean a whole lot whether an aircraft is used....I would hope that the community could convince Oleg, maybe through petition or bribery, to include the Mk XIV...one was built for sure, the cockpit was worked on...don't know if it was finished. AFAIK it was finished but missed the deadline.

Be careful of production numbers...especially Late war Luftwaffe numbers...there were many more aircraft constructed than acutally flew in the last year of the war...Me262's spring to mind as the best examples...there were many built but only a %...i'm thinking about 1/3 if memory serves me, that were actually equipped with engines...engine production was the bottleneck...lots of airframes though and those 262's burned engines up like matchsticks!

Doug_Thompson
10-18-2005, 04:28 PM
Fine. Forget the number produced. Lets count the number of different versions of the same airplane already in the game and impose a limit.

If there are five versions of the same plane in IL-2+FB+AE+PF, then I say no more versions. Go to something else.

That would allow us to get past the Bf 109, the FW 190 and the Spitfire.

VW-IceFire
10-18-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
Playing a bit on War Clouds recently and realised that FW190 A-8 and D-9 entered servive in late '43 and autumn '44 respectively. In contrast the Spit MkIX dates from 1942 (although misleadingly dated 1944 in-game).

The Griffin engined Spit XIV with 2035HP was in service by Dec 1943 and was truly the contemporary of the most advanced FWs.

I'd like a go of one that's for sure- even up the scales a bit!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Do a search for previous XIV topics. My explanation why it was never completed is there and I don't really want to repeat it again.

Doug_Thompson
10-18-2005, 04:58 PM
Posted Thu September 29 2005 15:44 by VW-Icefire (elipses are in original quote):


To my knowledge...the Spitfire XIV external model was submitted to Oleg on time, before the due date, with approval. The model itself was a modification of the Mark VIII model (also by the same modeler) which was both the logical move in terms of 3D design as well as historically (the first XIVs were Mark VIII modifications).

I was able to, thanks to another Spitfire modeler, dig up details on the GGS Mark IIC gyroscopic gunsight. This is the gunsight that the U.S. copied for the K-14 which we have in the P-51D-20 and YP-80. Identical in operation but slightly different in visual appearance.

Unfortunately several things happened. Firstly, communication broke down and people stopped responding to my e-mails. Second, the cockpit modeler (in part with number 1) didn't get back to us until very late in the process that the cockpit could not be finished. This unfortunate turn of events saw the external modeler start on the cockpit.

I don't know if it was ever finished and I can't find out because nobody ever returned any more e-mails. Maybe I got too annoying...I don't know. Was a shame. My Closterman campaign will certainly miss not having the No.41 Squadron Spitfire XIV's flying about nearby...

Fortunately, I think its a pretty good bet that we'll see the Tempest V in 4.03 or whatever they call it (not the one thats due soon). The Mosqutio I hope as well.

Erebus..
10-18-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Triggaaar:
I think I speak for most Brits when I say yes, I'd fancy a go in one of those

Yep

p1ngu666
10-18-2005, 06:46 PM
yep id like a go in one
got the realair one for FS2004 but its not the same... lovely as it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

some of those who dont want it because of its performance...

btw k4 autumn 44, ta152 first flight dec 44
dora sept onwards

plus ofcourse, everyones favourites, 109z,g0229,he162

so while there was less XIV's, they certainly had a fair few months of operations before a fair wodge of lw aircraft that are ingame.

RAAF_Furball
10-18-2005, 08:59 PM
Wishlist posting update ........ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

In addition to the MkXIV, a Lancaster, please.

But if only one more aircraft could be added, I'd like to see a Lancaster or a Beaufort and I'd still be happy with the Spitfire IXe.

Gibbage1
10-18-2005, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see?

More XIV's saw combat then the He-162, Go-229, 109Z, P-80, Ta-152, shall I go on? Thats a VERY bad stance in this game to have, considering you fly LW. I guess its OK for Luftwaffe pilots to only have options of late was low/no production aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Professor_06
10-19-2005, 01:51 AM
I dont use the "fancy" word.

EJGrOst_Caspar
10-19-2005, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:


More XIV's saw combat then the He-162, Go-229, 109Z, P-80, Ta-152, shall I go on? Thats a VERY bad stance in this game to have, considering you fly LW. I guess its OK for Luftwaffe pilots to only have options of late was low/no production aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

In fact I never have flown one of these in any online situation, not in any DF-server or Online War. Mostly the settings are restricted to the workhorses 109s up to G-10/14 and 190s up to Dora (often even skipped the A-9). Most of the existing axis jets are 95% nonsense for gameplay issues. I think, we don't need any more late war overpowered racing horse. There are better holes to fill.

WOLFMondo
10-19-2005, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see?

More XIV's saw combat then the He-162, Go-229, 109Z, P-80, Ta-152, shall I go on? Thats a VERY bad stance in this game to have, considering you fly LW. I guess its OK for Luftwaffe pilots to only have options of late was low/no production aircraft. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the grand scheme of things (yes I want the XIV too) the XIV played such a minor role in the RAF its not important, the IX was the mainstay Spitfire of the RAF, only the Mustang MkIII and Tempest V where used in the right numbers in the right place to make an impact.

What is important and should have been put in is probably the single most important aircraft, USAAF or RAF in the Normandy landings and the invasion of Europe, the plane that crushed the Germans at Falais, the plane that saved Patton when his advance went to far, the plane that could and did bust tanks regularly, the Hawker Typhoon.

Beside, the Tempest will be with us soon. Even if its poorly modelled, it will be superior to the Typhoon and carries the same loadout. Its also much better for online fighting as its peformance is good from SL to around 22,000ft.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
The mkXIV equiped 601 Sq. in Dec 1943, and six squadrons by the end of 1944. Granted these are not huge numbers but I'd still like a go.

I love the MkIX too and have flown it to many a defeat and a few victories. Is the IXHF any differrent other than a pressurised cockpit?

The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see? There are records of GM1 equipped Focke Wulf 190's used for high altitude combat that certainly saw service but they didnt in great numbers and we dont have them here. Or Fw A5/6's running at 1.68 ATA boost that certainly saw service in large numbers spring 44 (thats over 2100 hp at full throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) but we dont see them in this sim at all. Figures would indicate that an A6 with light armament load out would be superior to the D9 below 25000ft at such boost settings. Now that is a scary thought.

The source regarding the Spit IX at 25lbs was posted here recently and it clearly indicated that few squadrons actually used this boost rating and those that did were based the English side of the Channel hence the only Germans they encountered were of the robotic buzz bomb variety.

Tempest vs D9 is where the real match up lies both true high speed fighters suited to slashing attacks. The Spitfire XIV at 450mph would handle like a brick compared to the Tempest or D9 at these speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ur ta152 has gm1, the spitxiv was used, and used from quite early on just because there wasnt 10,000 of them dosnt make it any less worthy of being in the sim. How many ta152s go229s 109zs were there, hell probly more XIVs than g6/as, the d9 was hardly a numerous opponent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ps read my post again

Im talking about regular Fw models not any Ta 152's or special D9's that flew in single figures. Im also not asking for any X plane to be included I dont fly them and the server Im a member of do not really approve them. There were no 109 G6 AS's at all. So I agree with you there it is a misdesignation by Oleg and his team. However there were many 109 G10/14 and K4s , many more flew than the Spitfire XIV. The 109 G10 was the main variant with the G 14 in 1945 where in the RAF the spit IX was by far the most common fighter.

The main point of my post is that the Fw 190 was up boosted each year it was in service and in 1944 the Fw 190 A6 was in service flying at boost levels that the one we fly in game doesnt even come close too. The 190 A4 we have in game flies at the lowest boost rating ever recorded for the A4 one that was bypassed after a month or so of use (if it was ever used at all).

The Spit XIV flew in combat in smaller numbers than the D9 or 109 G10 or even the Me 262. If you look at the production figure of 950 or whatever it is a lot of this figure were completed after VE day. You have to ask why the Spit XIV was produced in so few numbers if it was ready in 1943? This is my point. Im happy to have the Spit 14, but I dont agree with anybody who passes the Spitfire XIV off as a 43 aircraft or as a contemporary to the 109 G6.

I also think that if we ever get a Spitfire 14 it will be inferior to the Fw 190 D9 and Tempest. Just like the 109 K4 is inferior to those two.

Despite my sig I am a Spitfire pilot also, maybe some of the guys hear could vouch for me.

mynameisroland
10-19-2005, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
How many different versions of the Spitfire are already in this game €" which lacks flyable versions of:

The Mosquito -- the MOSQUITO, for crying out loud.
The Tempest or the Typhoon
The Swordfish, or any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft that wasn't Lend-Lease.

No Wellingtons, flyable or otherwise. No flyable Blenheim. No Beaufort. In the minor but interesting category, no Westland Whirlwind. In the hoplessly bizzare category, no Boulton-Paul Defiant.

And that's just British planes off the top of my head.

Have mercy, people.

Unfortunately its down to the 3rd party modellers who decide what aircraft they model. I agree with you 100% unfortunately British aircraft are not as fashionable as VVS concept planes, Discovery Luftwaffe 46 channel or USA fantasy fighters like the P38 LATE.

Some guy made the Typhoon yet it was turned down due to it not meeting 'standards' set by 1C. Yet It looked no worse/better than any of the other 3rd party creations>?

Britain comes at the back of the list somewhere next to Italy when it comes down to market importance. Obviously we'd all rather fly P47 D (or is it M who knows!) or Yak 7bzx model than get another RAF flyable or even another RAF variant.

p1ngu666
10-19-2005, 02:23 PM
well, XIV was in service before the late war german stuff.

now where the XIV doing more sorties than non existant aircraft? hmmm yes.

the late war german stuff couldnt run at the same sorties produced per plane, due to the supply situation, and alot never getting anywhere or hidden away and forgotten. plus they where losing alot in combat, poor serviceability.

so the question is, could the lw late type(s) overhaul the XIV which has 6months headstart and doing 3 sorties a day per plane probably when in europe?

sorties are a better mesure of what a plane has done in the war than numbers produced.

JHannibalSmith
10-19-2005, 02:44 PM
I'm glad we've finally all agreed.

We do deserve a MkXIV, although I'd be very tempted to trade it for a Lancaster given the choice.

VW-IceFire
10-19-2005, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Doug_Thompson:
How many different versions of the Spitfire are already in this game €" which lacks flyable versions of:

The Mosquito -- the MOSQUITO, for crying out loud.
The Tempest or the Typhoon
The Swordfish, or any other Fleet Air Arm aircraft that wasn't Lend-Lease.

No Wellingtons, flyable or otherwise. No flyable Blenheim. No Beaufort. In the minor but interesting category, no Westland Whirlwind. In the hoplessly bizzare category, no Boulton-Paul Defiant.

And that's just British planes off the top of my head.

Have mercy, people.

Unfortunately its down to the 3rd party modellers who decide what aircraft they model. I agree with you 100% unfortunately British aircraft are not as fashionable as VVS concept planes, Discovery Luftwaffe 46 channel or USA fantasy fighters like the P38 LATE.

Some guy made the Typhoon yet it was turned down due to it not meeting 'standards' set by 1C. Yet It looked no worse/better than any of the other 3rd party creations>?

Britain comes at the back of the list somewhere next to Italy when it comes down to market importance. Obviously we'd all rather fly P47 D (or is it M who knows!) or Yak 7bzx model than get another RAF flyable or even another RAF variant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We were once shown what the difference between a workable model was and was not. Its not about aesthetic quality. The problem is in how the 3D mesh is constructed.

The Typhoon (and others) had holes, errors, and problems in the way that it was created. This means that the game would not be able to use the model at all. Game engines are very specific on how 3D models are rendered...while a 3D render engine can and indeed is designed to deal with nearly all 3D possibilities (sometimes for good reason) a game engine has to be efficient and therefore needs certain standards be met. Not much about aesthetics and quite a bit more about how it was put together. The best way to fix the Typhoon was unfortunately reported as rebuilding from scratch.

A shame indeed but it happened.

I always secretly hoped that maybe the Typhoon could be created by modifying the Tempest...but I think that too was quite an undertaking and the Tempest took much longer.

HellToupee
10-19-2005, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JHannibalSmith:
The mkXIV equiped 601 Sq. in Dec 1943, and six squadrons by the end of 1944. Granted these are not huge numbers but I'd still like a go.

I love the MkIX too and have flown it to many a defeat and a few victories. Is the IXHF any differrent other than a pressurised cockpit?

The problem there is do the numbers justify it and what service did they see? There are records of GM1 equipped Focke Wulf 190's used for high altitude combat that certainly saw service but they didnt in great numbers and we dont have them here. Or Fw A5/6's running at 1.68 ATA boost that certainly saw service in large numbers spring 44 (thats over 2100 hp at full throttle http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif) but we dont see them in this sim at all. Figures would indicate that an A6 with light armament load out would be superior to the D9 below 25000ft at such boost settings. Now that is a scary thought.

The source regarding the Spit IX at 25lbs was posted here recently and it clearly indicated that few squadrons actually used this boost rating and those that did were based the English side of the Channel hence the only Germans they encountered were of the robotic buzz bomb variety.

Tempest vs D9 is where the real match up lies both true high speed fighters suited to slashing attacks. The Spitfire XIV at 450mph would handle like a brick compared to the Tempest or D9 at these speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ur ta152 has gm1, the spitxiv was used, and used from quite early on just because there wasnt 10,000 of them dosnt make it any less worthy of being in the sim. How many ta152s go229s 109zs were there, hell probly more XIVs than g6/as, the d9 was hardly a numerous opponent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ps read my post again

Im talking about regular Fw models not any Ta 152's or special D9's that flew in single figures. Im also not asking for any X plane to be included I dont fly them and the server Im a member of do not really approve them. There were no 109 G6 AS's at all. So I agree with you there it is a misdesignation by Oleg and his team. However there were many 109 G10/14 and K4s , many more flew than the Spitfire XIV. The 109 G10 was the main variant with the G 14 in 1945 where in the RAF the spit IX was by far the most common fighter.

The main point of my post is that the Fw 190 was up boosted each year it was in service and in 1944 the Fw 190 A6 was in service flying at boost levels that the one we fly in game doesnt even come close too. The 190 A4 we have in game flies at the lowest boost rating ever recorded for the A4 one that was bypassed after a month or so of use (if it was ever used at all).

The Spit XIV flew in combat in smaller numbers than the D9 or 109 G10 or even the Me 262. If you look at the production figure of 950 or whatever it is a lot of this figure were completed after VE day. You have to ask why the Spit XIV was produced in so few numbers if it was ready in 1943? This is my point. Im happy to have the Spit 14, but I dont agree with anybody who passes the Spitfire XIV off as a 43 aircraft or as a contemporary to the 109 G6.

I also think that if we ever get a Spitfire 14 it will be inferior to the Fw 190 D9 and Tempest. Just like the 109 K4 is inferior to those two.

Despite my sig I am a Spitfire pilot also, maybe some of the guys hear could vouch for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

XIV numbers bring only 900 even tho it went into production about august 1943 was probly that it wasnt really needed, Spit mk9 was rushed into productioin and produced in large numbers because of the 190. Mk9 performed better than the 109g6s and wasnt being pounded by 190s.

Heavensabove
10-19-2005, 06:56 PM
A P-61 Black Widow would be a nice inclusion especially for night op's in Pacific Fighters. There are so many aircraft to choose from and every individual has a preference. A Mosquito would be the number one preference for myself, a Tempest, MkVIX Spit and flyable Lancaster would also do very nicely.

Why not throw them all in!.......if only it was that simple.

danjama
10-19-2005, 06:56 PM
"Dont want to burst anyones bubble but there is no way in hell the Spitfire XIV was a late 43 plane. It did appear in Spring 44 in limited numbers but there werent enough to equip even a single wing. The situation did not improve much and infact there were more Hurricanes in service in 1945 than there were Spit XIV's."

So how many 109Z's were made? Or how many actually flew? Pfft! I for one would love to see a MkXIV in game! That model looked a beauty.

ImpStarDuece
10-19-2005, 07:17 PM
AFAIK there were only 8 pure fighter Spitfire XIV squadrons who served in the ETO before VE Day.

No 610 Sqn in January, 1944
No 91 Sqn in March 1944
No 322 Sqn in March 1944
No 190 Sqn in August 1944
No 350 Sqn in August 1944
No 402 Sqn in August 1944
No 403 Sqn in August 1944
No 41 Sqn in September 1944


All 8 squadrons were operating from European bases by September 1944.


There were also several squadrons who operated the Spitfire FR XIVE, a dedicated low altitude fighter-reconnsiance version of the Mk XIV. The FR XIV had E type armament (2 .50 cals, 2 Hispanos), cut down rear fuselage, bubble canopy, clipped wings, an additional 33 imperial gallon (136 L)fuel tank in the rear fuselage and a removable oblique F.24 camera, also in the rear fuselage.

No 2 Sqn in November 1944, who operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIs (Allison engine) until Jan 1945, when they completely switched over to Mk XIVs
No 430 Sqn in November 1944.
No 268 Squadron in April 1945, who operated the type in parallel with Mustang IIIs
No 414 Sqn, who began to convert from Mk IXs in April 1945 but didn't finish until shortly after VE Day.


No 11 and 17 Sqns arrived in India in June 1945 with Mk XIVs, but were not decleared operational until August.

So ETO usage was 3 squadrons operational before D-Day, 8 by September 1944 and 9 1/2 squadrons by January 1945. Not massive, if you consider that the RAF operated around 56 squadrons Spitfires in Europe at the time, but still quite significant.

The XIV was the main airsuperiority fighter for 2TAF after September 1944, when they had two wings (No 125 and No 84)

EPP_Gibbs
10-19-2005, 08:12 PM
(1) The Spitfire XIV is one of the 4 definitive variants of the Spit. The others being the Mk1 MkV and MkIX

(2) It was flown by the RAF's leading Ace, Johnnie Johnson. JE@J on the fuselage.

(3) It was a bloody good plane

(4) It was the first allied fighter to down an ME262

(5) Without it there is no representation of the Rolls Royce Griffon engine in the sim, with its opposite rotation to the Merlin, 2050HP, and five bladed prop. Nice!

Those reasons alone merit it's inclusion.

Spitfire XIV Vs Tempest....depends on how much air there is under the wings. The RAF's own tests concluded the Tempest was better at low to medium altitude, the XIV better above that.

Typhoon and Tempest also have strong cases. Typhoon probably more so because of the major role it played as a ground pounder and anti-shipping plane.

Lancaster? Naaa... they never built enough...didn't see much service.....arrived too late in the war...There are already plenty of RAF bombers represented...well, one. Oh..it's not flyable..never mind. How many do you need!! hahhahahahaha

Mosquito?? never heard of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

VW-IceFire
10-19-2005, 09:11 PM
The XIV and Tempest are perfect companions. While the Tempest is very fast at low and medium altitudes, extremely well armed, and decently well protected, the Spitfire XIV is fast at high altitudes and more manueverable.

The result is that you cover all your bases high and low with quite a bit of flexibility.

TooCooL34
10-19-2005, 09:32 PM
The problem of mkXIV is.. it's **** good in all aspect.
Even in mkIXe, I can overwhelm whole german fighters. MkXIV with ace pilot in it? I'll never fly blue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I know this doesn't make sense but this is one of the reason 1C is indifferent to mkXIV, I think.

WTE_Target
10-20-2005, 12:42 AM
Well we have a boosted 'stang' and now a boosted Thunderbolt , we have German planes putting out performance that is exceptional considering the fuels available to the Luftwaffa at the end of the war , so whats the problem with giving the Spit the Boost it used from late 43 onwards.
Does Oleg and the boys feel that the British had not enough 150 grade fuel as opposed to the obvious huge stockpiles of high grade stuff the online late models of Germans have access to!!

I would be happy with 25 lb boost Mk IX if we cant get the Griffons!

WOLFMondo
10-20-2005, 12:53 AM
Those German planes tended to have massive capacity engines which where very well engineered. The British had enough 150 grade to power all the Mustang MkIII's and Tempests they had.


Originally posted by TooCooL34:
The problem of mkXIV is.. it's **** good in all aspect.
Even in mkIXe, I can overwhelm whole german fighters. MkXIV with ace pilot in it? I'll never fly blue. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I know this doesn't make sense but this is one of the reason 1C is indifferent to mkXIV, I think.

The XIV ain't all that down low. It was fast but it wasn't the fastest. Its why the Tempest was employed because it really did have superior low and medium altitude performance. Up to 20,000ft not many planes could actually compete with it in terms of sheer speed.

EPP_Gibbs
10-20-2005, 02:50 AM
Agree, Mondo. Low down the Spit XIV was fairly similar to the IX in performance apart from an off the deck climb rate approaching 5000ft/min. Jeffrey Quill regarded it as a little overpowered but a magnificent aeroplane. He should know. High up it came into it's own bigtime.

The question of range was ultimatly down to the problem of longitudinal stability. Packing too much fuel into the fuselage shifted the C of G to far rearward resulting in difficult handling when full. This was solved when they substantially increased the sizes of the tail surfaces, introduced on the Mk22 and Mk24, which arrived too late for the war. Had they done so earlier the Spit would have been a very good long range escort as well. That's development for you. You can't have it all at once!

The Stang handled like a pig when full too. The pilots had to be careful until the fuel in the fuselage tanks had been burnt off. Fortunately, usually by the time contact with the enemy was made the fuel load was lighter and normal handling had been resumed.

Quill rated the Mk24 as the ultimate Spitfire. Stunning. Compared to the XIV; even faster, even better handling, and with four hispanos. Ouch. Some years after he'd stopped test flying Spits, in the early Jet age Quill flew a Mk24 again, a delivery flight. Having stepped away from Spitfires for a while, he was still struck by just how good a plane it was.

No...I don't want it in the Sim.

HellToupee
10-20-2005, 04:21 AM
its still as fast as a k4 down low

WOLFMondo
10-20-2005, 04:57 AM
It is but then the XIV and K4 are very similar aircraft in so many respects. As fast isn't as good as faster though, so I'd pick a Tempesthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ploughman
10-20-2005, 05:55 AM
Want it because it's beautiful. All other considerations are secondary.

I would pay just for this plane so I could fly it in clear blue skies. I wouldn't let a Lufty near it, might scratch it, not allowed.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by danjama:
"Dont want to burst anyones bubble but there is no way in hell the Spitfire XIV was a late 43 plane. It did appear in Spring 44 in limited numbers but there werent enough to equip even a single wing. The situation did not improve much and infact there were more Hurricanes in service in 1945 than there were Spit XIV's."

So how many 109Z's were made? Or how many actually flew? Pfft! I for one would love to see a MkXIV in game! That model looked a beauty.

danjama Im saying the Spit XIV is not a late 43 fighter. What are you talking about the 109 Z for quoting me ?

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Target:
Well we have a boosted 'stang' and now a boosted Thunderbolt , we have German planes putting out performance that is exceptional considering the fuels available to the Luftwaffa at the end of the war , so whats the problem with giving the Spit the Boost it used from late 43 onwards.
Does Oleg and the boys feel that the British had not enough 150 grade fuel as opposed to the obvious huge stockpiles of high grade stuff the online late models of Germans have access to!!

I would be happy with 25 lb boost Mk IX if we cant get the Griffons!

All late war 'exceptional' performance Luftwaffe planes use 87 octane equivalent and Mw50 boost. Nothing remarkable there it is a means to an end and it also did the trick ... for a price of reduced engine life.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 07:36 AM
I want a Spitfire IX 25lb boost and also an XIV but more importantly a bloody Tempest! Hurry up 1C !

The Spitfire IX 25lb would be equal to Bf 109 G6AS, The Spit XIV and Bf 109 K4 were very closely matched and the Tempest would be my choice to fly against the D9.

It will all come down to pilot skill.

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 08:33 AM
Although this information has been posted elsewhere, it bears repeating.

I re-read Oleg Maddox's posts and replies on the topic of new aircraft in his "Ready Room" forum. He makes it clear that adding airplanes to IL-2 -> PF has become a distraction to working on Battle of Britain.

However, he promised the people who developed models that he will not throw away their work if he can avoid it.

There could be unforseen problems, so the following list should be seen as a list of possible add ons. However, it seems clear to any unbiased reader that there won't be any more A/C coming until Battle of Britain comes out, except for those from this list.

Flyable planes with completed cockpits and will be available in the non-Russian version are:

1. Two versions of the Fokker D-XXI fighter for Finland.

2. The Dornier 335 heavy fighter.

3. The Mitsubishi "Raiden" J2M3

4. The Junkers 88 A4

5. The MC-200 "Saetta" (Italian radial engined fighter.)

6. The MC-202 "Foglore"

7. MC-205 "Veltro"

8. Mosquito MkVI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

9. A-20C

10. Curtis CW-21 (Netherlands?)

11. Tempest MkV

The only entry on that list I could really argue against happens to be my personal favorite, the Do-335. Adding the Tempest and Mosquito are long overdue. The Raiden is justified because the only Japanese fighter in the game that can stand up to post-1942 American powerhouses is the Ki-84 "Frank." The Foglore and its successor, the "Velto," are the only Italian fighters produced in any quantity that can stand up to 1,200 h.p.+ allied fighters. The earlier "Saetta" was the chief Italian monoplane fighter type. The Junkers 88 and A-20 are fine additions. The Fokkers are needed for the "Winter War" and Finland front, and the Curtis is needed to give somebody in a Netherlands campaign the option to do something besides fly a Buffalo out of Singapore.

I do wish we'd get a couple of planes that are in the Russia-only add-on: The Pe-2 and the Ki-27.

mynameisroland
10-20-2005, 09:34 AM
Imagine taking the Mosquito and attacking in a shallow dive from 2000m you'd be travelling at 700Km/h + over target and only the AAA manned by the Pope would be able to track you.

Id like to see the Do 355 Pfeil purely out of interest. Twin Jumo 213's pumping out 1900 HP each and no torque would make for an interesting opponent and a great Strike fighter. I reckon the cockpit view would be a bit like the Stuka.

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 10:34 AM
To be perfectly clear, there is some possibility that flyable planes from the Russian version may make it into the West. The list of these long-shots are:

1. Il-10, a next-generation Il-2
2. Ki-27, mentioned earlier in my wish list.
3. Pe-2, several versions.

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 10:37 AM
I reckon the cockpit view would be a bit like the Stuka.

By all accounts, the rear view was terrible. Later versions had bulges in the canopy that housed little mirrors.

Arm_slinger
10-20-2005, 10:44 AM
Spit XIV? YES PLEASE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Turns as well as a IX, faster, and climbs like a demon. Plus it has 5 blades and looks sex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

p1ngu666
10-20-2005, 10:51 AM
no torque is a simplifcation, just counter acted each other, wonder if it twisted when u adusted power http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

do335 has more charm than the luftwaffe tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Doug_Thompson
10-20-2005, 11:56 AM
do335 has more charm than the luftwaffe tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

That's what interests me about it. It's aerodynamically interesting. There was a very good thread about it long ago. Qualified pilots said that having the two engines in line like that means you will have a twin-engine with a good roll rate, but it still won't be as maneuverable as a single.

On, who am I kidding. I'm interested in it because it's wicked fast.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

p1ngu666
10-20-2005, 12:46 PM
do335 vs hornet would be a cool 45/46 matchup http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

goshikisen
10-20-2005, 12:58 PM
The XIV was, at least in my opinion, the most pleasing to the eye of all the Mk. of Spit. Here are a couple screenshots of the model for those who've never seen it before. Kudos to the modeller for giving it a try... too bad it isn't IL2 friendly.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/XIV.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/update7.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v460/goshikisen/update6.jpg

Regards, Goshikisen.

96th_Nightshifter
10-20-2005, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Spit XIV? YES PLEASE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Turns as well as a IX, faster, and climbs like a demon. Plus it has 5 blades and looks sex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lol indeed.

RAAF_Furball
10-20-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Want it because it's beautiful. All other considerations are secondary.

I would pay just for this plane so I could fly it in clear blue skies. I wouldn't let a Lufty near it, might scratch it, not allowed.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

jeanba2
10-21-2005, 02:14 AM
Though I am not very optimistic about it, I sure would like to have the Spit Mk XIV flyable in FB

HotelBushranger
10-21-2005, 02:31 AM
I wouldn't mind one of those, they look real beaut http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif A real lady-killer (i.e. Lufties http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

JHannibalSmith
10-21-2005, 06:00 AM
Id like to see the Do 355 Pfeil purely out of interest. Twin Jumo 213's pumping out 1900 HP each and no torque would make for an interesting opponent and a great Strike fighter. I reckon the cockpit view would be a bit like the Stuka.

Yeah, the Do355 would be great. Only 11 had been produced by the end of the war so the production number/combat usage = valid reason for inclusion in the game, does not always hold true.

Vipez-
10-21-2005, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Spit XIV? YES PLEASE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Turns as well as a IX, faster, and climbs like a demon. Plus it has 5 blades and looks sex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why should it turn as well as IX ? Just like comparing K-4 to 109F-4/G-2, K-4 was built to be faster, less draggy, in other words K-4 did not turn as well as F-4 and G-2 at low speeds,Speed is life.. neither did XIV turn as well as IX .. granted the difference is not that big, but still couple of seconds more in sustained turn can make a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif XIV was also a lot heavier than IX, 3900kg vs ~3400 kg, over 400 kg more weight..

HellToupee
10-21-2005, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Spit XIV? YES PLEASE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Turns as well as a IX, faster, and climbs like a demon. Plus it has 5 blades and looks sex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why should it turn as well as IX ? Just like comparing K-4 to 109F-4/G-2, K-4 was built to be faster, less draggy, in other words K-4 did not turn as well as F-4 and G-2 at low speeds,Speed is life.. neither did XIV turn as well as IX .. granted the difference is not that big, but still couple of seconds more in sustained turn can make a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif XIV was also a lot heavier than IX, 3900kg vs ~3400 kg, over 400 kg more weight.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

because in flighttests the XIV is listed as being about the same in turn only with slightly worse stall characteristics.

ashley2005
10-21-2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Triggaaar:
I think I speak for most Brits when I say yes, I'd fancy a go in one of those

ya id gladly trade my girlfriend for one :P

Vipez-
10-22-2005, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by HellToupee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Arm_slinger:
Spit XIV? YES PLEASE!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Turns as well as a IX, faster, and climbs like a demon. Plus it has 5 blades and looks sex http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Why should it turn as well as IX ? Just like comparing K-4 to 109F-4/G-2, K-4 was built to be faster, less draggy, in other words K-4 did not turn as well as F-4 and G-2 at low speeds,Speed is life.. neither did XIV turn as well as IX .. granted the difference is not that big, but still couple of seconds more in sustained turn can make a difference http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif XIV was also a lot heavier than IX, 3900kg vs ~3400 kg, over 400 kg more weight.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

because in flighttests the XIV is listed as being about the same in turn only with slightly worse stall characteristics. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

define slightly..

VW-IceFire
10-22-2005, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
The XIV was, at least in my opinion, the most pleasing to the eye of all the Mk. of Spit. Here are a couple screenshots of the model for those who've never seen it before. Kudos to the modeller for giving it a try... too bad it isn't IL2 friendly.
Regards, Goshikisen.
Where did it come up as not being IL2 friendly? The model was based on the Spitfire VIII already in-game and Oleg was asked if the VIII had any serious issues before the whole thing was started...

goshikisen
10-22-2005, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where did it come up as not being IL2 friendly? The model was based on the Spitfire VIII already in-game and Oleg was asked if the VIII had any serious issues before the whole thing was started...

A wrong assumption on my part... if it's a well built model then it's even more disappointing that it won't be included. With all the Late War LW aircraft in the series you'd think the XIV would be a no-brainer.

biggs222
10-22-2005, 03:10 PM
i still cant believe Oleg dropped it... its almost copletely finished externally and internally... tha cockit is almost identical to the MKIXs and the models by "Nyme" are all completed they have been completed for a LONG time now.... its like oleg just doesnt want to bother with it....


i thnk olegs excuse was the cockpit... D*AMNIT OLEG jsut stick the mkVIII or IX cockpit in there and give it to us!!!!!

im sorry but when a plane is this close to completion there is NO EXCUSE for not putting it in the sim.

im sorry but thats the way i see this.

Monty_Thrud
10-23-2005, 05:14 AM
Yes i would dearly love to see the XIV in game, she was our only chance for a Griffon engined Spitfire..

And if FS2004 (http://www.realairsimulations.com/) can have one...well

danjama
10-24-2005, 07:08 AM
Ah man i want to buy FS2004 just for that plane and all the other beautiful models they have. Their FW VS P51 pack looks beautiful. You have to admit FS2004 graphics aint that bad. We need a MkXIV Now! That model is gorgeous.

WOLFMondo
10-24-2005, 08:40 AM
You can't shoot stuff though! Apart from that it looks nice.

Got it, installed it, forgot about it.

marc_hawkins
10-24-2005, 07:19 PM
While having the XIV would be great, (like i'd know being new and having to starting learning again the basics now i've got the patches) i may have to risk a communal lead-pipe beating by voting the early mark spits as more pretty. Can't get used to the redesigned tail (and other stuff meddled with on later spits) and the griffon nose... *Thump!* *Thump!* *collapse*

VW-IceFire
10-24-2005, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by goshikisen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
Where did it come up as not being IL2 friendly? The model was based on the Spitfire VIII already in-game and Oleg was asked if the VIII had any serious issues before the whole thing was started...

A wrong assumption on my part... if it's a well built model then it's even more disappointing that it won't be included. With all the Late War LW aircraft in the series you'd think the XIV would be a no-brainer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Like I said...its a mystery. Nobody replied to any futher e-mails and everyone disappeared. It was a matter of very poor communication...

I think Oleg figured that if there was no cockpit the external was not worth it in this case. And time...always time. We were on the tail end of things.

And the cockpit is a modification of the Mark VIII's. The main dash is different from the IX's.

But a Tempest will do...we've been waiting longer and we already do have quite a few Spitfires in the game. So if it were a choice between these two British fighters...I'd choose the Tempest. I think that makes the most sense.

Idealy I want both...

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 10:54 PM
that, and that u love the tempest more than anything in the entire world evar http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

mynameisroland
10-25-2005, 06:56 AM
So is it official are we not getting the XIV ? Despite me not wanting servers full of maps with Spit XIV (like we have maps full of La5FN and La7's currently) I want this fighter in game. Id fly it myself and Id fly against it, it would be a great opponent. The D9 vs Spit XIV would be like Spit IX vs Fw A5 matchup we have at the moment but faster http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JFC-Slumped
10-25-2005, 09:36 AM
The game is full of planes with low production numbers, according to the games description no 109Z's flew. On top of that the majority of many of these late war "uber" planes that were produced never saw combat.
At least people arn't asking for a Glouster Meteor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

The XIV would be nice if all you are interested in is air to air combat, but speaking from a more rounded point of view the RAF currently have no ground attack capability.

A Mosquito or Tempest would probably be better than a XIV if you wanted to do any useful ground attack as an RAF pilot flying "our own" planes.

However I doubt we'll see any of them in PF. I would be very dissapointed if none of these types make it into BoB though. I realise that these planes arn't in the actual BoB timeframe, but plenty of planes have been added to previous titles that wern't strictly theatre http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif